logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 경주지원 2017.07.05 2017고정107
공유재산및물품관리법위반
Text

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

No person shall use or benefit from administrative property unless he/she complies with the procedures and methods prescribed by Acts.

Nevertheless, during the period from the beginning of December 2016 to February 16, 2017, the Defendant occupied the site for the parking lot in the racing-si, which is an administrative property, without permission, and operated the street store in the name of “D”.

Accordingly, the defendant used the administrative property not different from the procedure and method set forth in the law.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E statements;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to accusation, guide and guide the removal of occupation and use without permission in the F market, guide and warning, voluntary notification of removal due to occupation and use without permission in each F market parking lot, investigation report (Attachment to on-site photographs), investigation report (Attachment to a certified copy of real estate register);

1. Article applicable to the facts constituting a crime, and Articles 99 and 6 (1) of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act that choose to provide for punishment;

1. Penalty of 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act of the Suspension of Pronouncement of Sentence (a) (a) of the same Act (the fact that the Defendant is led to the confession of the Defendant, there is no criminal history, and the Defendant is operating the Mabbbbbbbak shop at the front of the F market, and it appears that the Defendant committed the instant crime while operating the Mabbbak shop at the front of the F market, and that it seems that the Defendant’s economic situation appears not to be sufficient, and that it appears that the Defendant’

arrow